babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » the middle east and central asia   » Iraq agrees to U-2 flights

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: Iraq agrees to U-2 flights
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 10 February 2003 03:45 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
http://www.msnbc.com/news/842500.asp?vts=021020031140
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jingles
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3322

posted 10 February 2003 05:02 PM      Profile for Jingles     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
That Bono sure gets around.

Seriously, a U-2? What is this, 1961? Of course, if the US was serious about disarming Iraq, it would give the UN access to its massive intelligence assets such as satellites and overflights.

But they aren't, so they won't.


From: At the Delta of the Alpha and the Omega | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
'lance
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1064

posted 10 February 2003 05:06 PM      Profile for 'lance     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
For Tom Clancy fans out there, this Slate article explains why the US still uses U-2's.

quote:
Yet the U-2 is still a lot more reliable than Lockheed's other celebrated spy plane, the SR-71 Blackbird, which was officially retired in 1993. The Blackbird wowed with its sleek looks and Mach 3 speed, but it was a royal pain to operate. It leaked fuel on takeoff, guzzled gas midflight, and required extra-long runways for takeoff; nearly all Blackbird missions originated from domestic air bases, where the sensitive planes could be lovingly tended. The U-2, by contrast, is a less fickle machine and can be deployed from virtually any runway.

Satellites have often been proposed as an alternative to U-2s, since no enemy projectile can reach into space. But because they're virtual slaves to their orbits, satellites cannot circle over a specific target. And foes with even middling intelligence can usually figure out when American satellites are passing overhead and cease suspicious activity during those times. That's why the military continues to rely heavily on U-2s, particularly in combat situations. A Defense Week source estimated that during the Gulf War, U-2s provided 90 percent of targeting information to American ground forces, and that during the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia, 80 percent of the surveillance shots were provided by U-2s.



From: that enchanted place on the top of the Forest | Registered: Jul 2001  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2003 05:23 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
What is this, 1961?

You got something against 1961, Jingles? Wanna make something of it?

But seriously:

quote:
“The bottom line is the president is interested in disarmament,” spokesman Scott McClellan said. “This does nothing to change that.”

But leaders of the inspectors said Iraq appeared to be coming around on their concerns, if slowly.


The bottom line is the president (U.S. persuasion) is embarrassingly committed to starting a war -- except most of the ducks he thought he had lined up are now paddling off in all directions.

Are we allowed to start thinking with hope now?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 10 February 2003 05:30 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Sorry, wouldn't count on it.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
darkhorse
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3508

posted 10 February 2003 05:33 PM      Profile for darkhorse     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
So much will depend on Blix's report this friday. And I am very skeptical of him, especially as he has been disparaging the French/German/Russian initiative.
From: in transit | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2003 05:34 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh:

1. Why? Things are much messier than they were last week. (Yippee!)

2. If hopeless, you still thinking next Monday? Sooner? Later?


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 10 February 2003 05:38 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
More U.S. military personnel are pouring into the middle east as we chat. Bush has backed himself into a corner. To back off now would be such a loss of face, that the crazy right would never forgive him.

I have been predicting the 22d, although I also hear it might not be until the Ides of March. Operation "Desert Spring" is one joke.

I hope you're right Skdadl, but the train seems too far down the track at this point to derail.

[ 10 February 2003: Message edited by: josh ]


From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478

posted 10 February 2003 05:51 PM      Profile for skdadl     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
josh, at noon today CBC radio read off a long list of countries who were ordering their nationals out of Iraq.

They've been preoccupied with other matters since. But ...


From: gone | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 11 February 2003 12:31 AM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Additional evidence of the U.S. policy being effective. WHy didn't Iraq give the U.N. permission until now, simply becaust of the U.S. threat.

The real question is why the U.N. tolerated Iraq's objections to a U2 plane in the first place.

Or do you think its merely a coincidence that Iraq is cooperating more now?


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 February 2003 02:03 AM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thees Iraqees are pritty snicky, if you ask me. Giving in on all the demands, ain weesilin round and such, just caen't trust em to sit still ain get thumped. Not fair making ol Georgy boy look bad.

Just goes to show ye caen't trust em none. Ain if you caent trust em, how do wees know what they is hidin?

So I say we thump em anyway!


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Zatamon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1394

posted 11 February 2003 02:12 AM      Profile for Zatamon     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The bear and the fox are bored. “What shall we do?”, asks the bear. “Let’s beat up on the rabbit” the fox says.” But what reason do we give?” asks the bear. “Oh , he doesn’t have his hat on” says the fox. So they beat up on the rabbit.

A week later, same story, but this time they ask the rabbit for a cigarette. The rabbit surprises them: “What kind would you like? Filtered or unfiltered, menthol or regular, strong or mild?

The bear and the fox are speechless for a minute. Then the fox says: “he still doesn’t have a hat on!” and they beat up on the rabbit again.


From: where hope for 'hope' is contemplated | Registered: Sep 2001  |  IP: Logged
DrConway
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 490

posted 11 February 2003 03:14 AM      Profile for DrConway     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Teehee.

Hey, didn't Iraq empty the jails about 3 months ago, in compliance with some UN resolution demanding that all political prisoners be freed?


From: You shall not side with the great against the powerless. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 11 February 2003 05:16 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I agree with you as far as it goes, Markbo. The US's hardline stance has forced many concessions from Saddam and that is a very good thing. If only this were all an act and they had no intention of invading, but I doubt that's the case.

Although the (probably unwelcome) side effect of the US's threats has been to produce a highly co-operative Iraq, you seem to think that this is their whole motivation for threatening. Do you really believe that anything would stop their invasion now? And if so, what would it be?

Because if there isn't anything, then you admit that Iraq compliance is just an irritant to Bush, and his threats to invade are actually aimed at the international community whom he hopes to bully and cajole onside. They are not aimed at Iraq, which he plans to occupy no matter what.


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Markbo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 124

posted 11 February 2003 07:07 PM      Profile for Markbo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Giving in on all the demands,

Uh, which U.N. resolution did they actually honour?

THe Bear, Fox and Rabbit story is cute except when you have to substitute not having a hat on for building chemical, biological weapons and seeking Nuclear ones as well.

quote:

Teehee.
Hey, didn't Iraq empty the jails about 3 months ago, in compliance with some UN resolution demanding that all political prisoners be freed?

I don't understand your point, that they screwed with the resolution by simply emptying the jails. Or that they had entire jailfulls of political prisoners even though they agreed to release them 10 years ago?

quote:

I agree with you as far as it goes, Markbo. The US's hardline stance has forced many concessions from Saddam and that is a very good thing. If only this were all an act and they had no intention of invading, but I doubt that's the case.

If you knew for sure the U.S. motives then it would not work. I think that he's not bluffing, that if Saddam doesn't cooperate they are not bluffing. But thats why they have been so effective. Willingness to go to war it seems can prevent war.

quote:
Do you really believe that anything would stop their invasion now? And if so, what would it be?

Two things, Saddam leaving the country. Saddam cooperating with the U.N. fully Addressing 100% of U.N. concerns noted by U.N. inspectors. (Notice how I did not say U.S. concerns)


From: Windsor | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Moredreads
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3393

posted 11 February 2003 10:02 PM      Profile for Moredreads     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
You ask, 'why did they not allow the U2 flights before, lets try this. The U2's will be flown by US personel, the data will be collected by US personel, the US will have complete access to all miltary information gathered by these flights. The US has stated publicly that it intends to invade the country in question.

Why would any nation or govenment allow without protest their primary antagonist in a military situation access to all that intelligence?


From: Canada | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
Jacob Two-Two
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2092

posted 12 February 2003 08:54 PM      Profile for Jacob Two-Two     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Well, willingness to go to war can intimidate a hostile adversary, but it cannot prevent a war. Only some amount of unwillingness can do that. The question is, does the Bush administration have any? That is, are there any circumstances whatsoever that they would not drop bombs on Iraq?

Many people here believe that no matter what Saddam does, Bush cannot back down now. It would be too politically damaging.

We all know that Saddam is not going to leave Iraq. We can factor that right out of the equation. Probably he wouldn't survive any attempt to take advantage of his enemies' mercy.

As for the inspections, he is complying so far. The inspectors want more time, and Bush doesn't want to give it to them. Obviously there is considerable progress being made on the inspections but Bush keeps threatening to jump the gun. If this is all bluster to scare Saddam, then more power to him. But if, as I and most of the world suspects, he really is anxious to do some killin' and losing patience with all this inspections nonsense, then he's just a lying warmonger, wouldn't you say?

Just like the sanctions, where they also wouldn't give any way out, there has to be a point at which they will relent, some condition that they will accept, otherwise they are the aggressors and all their demands are so much smokescreen. Don't you agree, Markbo?


From: There is but one Gord and Moolah is his profit | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca